United States v. Crozzoli’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Franks v. Delaware · Giglio v. United States · Bates v. State Bar · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 7(f) ... permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars to identify with specificity the nature of the charge pending against him so that he may prepare for trial, avoid surprise and be able to claim double jeopardy should he be prosecuted again for the same crime. The decision to grant or deny a request for a bill of particulars rests within the sound discx*etion of the court. As a general rule if the information the defendant seeks is to be found in the indictment or in some acceptable alternative form, no bill of particulars is required.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this chapter, the order may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at such intervals as the judge may require.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.